I always treat the first player rule as a suggestion. Many times when playing a new game it makes more sense for an experienced player to go first to give less experienced players ideas for what they need to do on their turn. A lot of times I'll just ask if anyone wants to go first. Great discussion gentleman!
Easily my favourite tie break for Arboretum - the final criteria if the others still haven't determined a winner, is that the tied players each plant a tree and then come back in 5 years to see which has grown the tallest! (Though it doesn't say what to do if both trees are the exact same height...)
Rather than focussing on negative stuff, here's some stuff I like; - When a rule book has examples that go along with the rules, this helps us visual learners map things out. - A quick guide on the back/quick start guide - When rules for specific situations are separated out, not integrated into the rules (i.e. variants, 2-player/solitaire rules) - When a rulebook is well designed, this doesn't mean paying loads for a graphic designer, just make sure they're are well laid out in a good, clear font (if I was being negative I might mention Queen games as a culprit here, but as I'm not I wont.) - When terms referring to the players are written in gender-neutral nouns, i.e. they, them, their. Some get wound up in he/her his/hers etc.
+Mark Cooke I think both should be done, positives and negatives. I agree with your points above. - The way I like most rule books is just how I like to teach games. Explain the simple concepts then walk through the rules in turn order referencing situational very specific things to a catalog later in the book. - I also like when rule books point to a place to get updated rules. So any modifications or corrections can easily be gathered. - Finally I want to 2nd the reference on the back of the book. Even when I know a game it is good to set out for others to have access to that are new.
+Mark Cooke "When a rulebook is well designed, this doesn't mean paying loads for a graphic designer, just make sure they're are well laid out in a good, clear font" I have to disagree with you on this point. If a rule book is well-designed, then it does mean having a good graphic designer, and the good ones do get paid pretty well (as they should). Especially if you want multiple illustrated examples to help the visual learners like you and me (amen, brother!), laying out text around lots of images, often of different sizes and shapes, will require a seriously talented graphic designer, if you want it to flow smoothly for an uninterrupted reading experience. I'd actually list this as one of my gripes about rule books: Not enough companies seem willing to spend the money on quality graphic design.
+mjschryver yeah, totally agree with you. I suppose what I mean is, if a company is not willing to spend the money to have a well designed rulebook they should at least just follow basic design rules. The Queen games rulebooks I have are an example of how this is not done well. within one section of rules, that are all about the same thing, they might have a few different fonts, these fonts could then be in bold/italics etc., the text offset in different directions and example boxes that are not near the rules they relate to. I guess my point was more that you shouldn't need a graphic designer to tell you that it looks shoddy! However, my preference would be that they would pay up and get something good, Super Motherload and Euphoria (actually, anything Stonemaier!) are a couple of my favourite rulesets
"- When a rulebook is well designed, this doesn't mean paying loads for a graphic designer, just make sure they're are well laid out in a good, clear font (if I was being negative I might mention Queen games as a culprit here, but as I'm not I wont.)" Most people don't know what makes a text they themselves wrote easier or harder to read - but I'm a biased graphic design fanatic.
Rodney is probably the best person to learn games online. That is a gift you have my friend. I can only imagine how difficult and how much work it takes to make some of those watch it played.
There are numerous ways to decide starting player randomly or semi-randomly. My favorite way in big games (like 10 player secret hitler) but also work with small numbers is what we call Ready, Steady, Shoot! All players ready their imaginary guns and shoot simultaneously. There are three options, shoot yourself, shoot someone else or shoot straight up in the air. Resolve as follows: Anyone shot (by themselves or other player) is out. One exception: A player who is shot by another player and also shoots themself is protected and instead the shooter or shooters are instead out. Continue until one player is left, if all players are out in one round, redo the round. This makes it a kind of multiplayer Rock, Paper, Scissors that works even on 2. Other more semi-randomly can be: grab a player piece of each color, hide them in your hands and have another player draw one without looking. But yeah, as other people mentioned, there are apps aswell :)
My pet peeves - Not having the back of the rule book be a phase / round summary (if there are no player aids with this info). Lack of examples if it's not obvious how certain aspects are played (you can never be too clear).
+TheGameBoyGeek - Hi Quality Hi Energy Board Game Reviews we are in sync. Back of the book and player aids should ideally cover these things: - phase/action/rounds - end game trigger, if that's a thing - scoring and usefully: - anything basic stuff (setup details) you forget when you haven't played for a while
I prefer random first players, I hate when a game says "youngest player first" or something like that. I always play with the same game group and my friend James is the youngest player so he would always be going first. We played Small World the other day and that says "the person with the pointiest ears goes first". Wouldn't you know it James has the pointiest ears too, and it's not like anyone else's ears are going to get pointier by the next time we play!
+Ken Adams Well ... I read/heard somewhere that "the youngest begins" means "it's easier to be the first player" while "the oldest begins" means "it's more difficult to go first but ... he/she is older so wiser so it's not a problem for him/her". And I agree: games giving you the criterion to choose the 1st player can cause weird situation where you ask at loud, for example, "who is the most suspicious-looking around the table ?". I much prefer: a) choosing the 1st so the beginner is the last and sees what the "experiment" ones do, b) or determining by drawing a card or rolling a dice.
+Josh McDowell I must be the Anti-Pep - Josh, I completely agree with you; we do exactly the same thing though sometimes one of us has to delve into the clammy hand of another to pick out a player piece. The stupid ways some rules suggest first played really annoys me, especially in games where first player can be pretty powerful, as I tend to play with the same group and so it would always be the same first player whenever we play that game.
Oh my gosh I completely agree with you Rodney on tie-breakers! Don't stop at 1 or 2 tie breakers then call it a draw. Make sure there is definitely one winner at the end!!!!!! Gah!
I think repetition is intended to be useful for when you might be looking up a rule later (while playing) and information referenced in a different section would help for the rule you're researching. The repetition also helps avoid the ping-ponging Choose-Your-Own-Adventure stuff you gripe about later.
Nice video, this was good stuff! My 2 cents, from largest to smallest: Rounds, Phases, Turns/Actions. Also, not sure if mentioned elsewhere, but it seems a HUGE challenge to writing a good rule books is balancing two somewhat conflicting objectives: Being a game tutorial. Also being a rules reference guide.
What I would like to see in a rules book is a complete round walkthrough that you set up and go through the motions and learn all the mechanics and systems in the game. Don't need a whole game walkthrough, just one round.
Great episode! I'm a graphic designer for tabletop rulebooks. The process of interpreting text into visual diagrams forces a much degree of scrutiny than straight proofreading. If there are any ambiguities, I have to ask for clarifications to make the diagram as clear as possible. Hopefully that spares the future player the trouble, though!
That's why technical writing is an actual skill you learn in language and communication courses. I agree with you about the action-turn-round thing which is often confusing, especially to non-native English users like me. Another thing is I hate is the excessive use of text to describe concepts that are best presented in flow chart or pictures. There's no point to list 11 steps and then put several long sentences under each to tell you what to draw, what to place on the board and then do what. Just make a flow chart with arrows, colorful blocks with little texts and extra information in bullet points.
I typically don't watch the table talk videos, but this one peaked my interest. Very well done! And I think it was valuable feedback delivered in the right way.
Where do you like seeing the "How to win" section -- at the beginning of the rules or at the end? I like it at the beginning because it puts the rest of the rules into context : you know how they work to achieve victory.
+Emanuel de Matos I think a rulebook should have an introduction like "In this game, players are ...... in order to .... and .... At the end of the game, the one who .... wins" and then you have the chronological explanation of the rules and the details of the "how to win" at the end.
+Emanuel de Matos I like to see the general at the beginning, but the specifics at the end, preferably on the back cover so it's easy to look at during or at the end of the game. The back page of the rulebook should be used for important reference material.
i suggest the use of Bold for important rules, or a other colour. also if some rule is complicated give a excample with a image ilustrating that excample. a clear image tels me more than a 100 words. funyest draw condition i saw was: go outside, whoever digs a pit of 1 meter depth the fastest wins, wel its a digging game so it is theme full at least.
one thing publishers forget to wrtite is a rule summary at the end. for example: in pandemic or arkham horror you have a lot of different ways to lose but one way to win, so after you read about the 10th way that you can lose you forget the first ways to lose so you have to start again hoping that you could memorise all the different ways of losing and how to prevent them as well as actually winning the game.
I work as a "Game Expert" at a board game cafe, so I teach my fair share of games. I really appreciate rule books that have a summary of the "easily forgotten" information on either the first or last page. I'm talking about details like how many cards to deal to players, hand size limit, how many victory points you need, what triggers end game, etc. These are details that are hard to remember because it varies from game to game (and sometimes varies within a game depending on player count). Every second I spend looking something up in a rule book is a second that the table is disengaging from the activity, which is the opposite of what should be happening! As a Game Expert, it's my job to ensure everyone is having the most fun possible, and I love a rulebook that helps me get the game going quickly!
Rounds vs turns is confusing for some of us old AD&D players... A turn consisted of 10 rounds :-) But yeah, for board games, everyone takes their turn and then the round ends.
Of the most recent games that I have seen, I think that the rulebook for Panamax was one of the best that I have seen. The game setup was pretty good and the rules were well explained.
Here is the information from our earlier tweet discussion if you would like to use it in the video: As far as Orleans goes, after translating the FAQ, the original German terms are Ortskarten (place cards) and Personenplättchen (people tiles). While Karte means card, Platte can mean a whole lot of things, from a piece of wood, a board, a tile, etc. It is tricky trying to stay true to the German while translating. Especially since game bit terminology isn’t standardized. Even more terms from the original German rules for Orleans: Warenplättchen, Bürgerplättchen, and Technikplättchen (goods, citizens, technology) all have Platte. Stundenglaskarten (event cards) has Karte instead of Platte. Where is the line between a literal translation of rules (into good English), and standardization of English terms for board game rule books? Does the hobby need standardization? Also: my wish for rulebooks is that they follow the same general course as a person teaching the game. Sometimes it is very difficult to read a rulebook and then figure out how to teach the game to others. I love it when you can learn how to teach a game to others from the rulebook! Thanks for the great discussion!
I understand this experience is not typical of all companies, but I worked for a company where I designed instructions for a game/product. Instructional designers typically have the last say when writing out the instructions. I wrote out one set of instructions that were primarily pictorial. After submitting the completed rules for review from my supervisor, other people had a say as to how I did the layout. First, the game/product designers asked for changes to be made on terminology and layout. Those changes were made. Second, my supervisor and the brand managers asked for changes to be made on the layout and content. Those changes were made. Lastly, the marketing team adds their two cents about how the instructions should be laid out and that multiple language translations need to be included within the layout without adding additional pages. Those changes are then made. It was a very frustrating work experience sufficed to say. Writing rules is important but the "too many cooks in the kitchen" makes the process arduous. The only thing I can recommend to independent game designers is not to make the instructional design process complicated; larger companies are harder to affect.
As a professional editor, I have a lot to say about rule books. :) You guys did a nice job covering some of the most important general aspects of good rules - clarity and consistency. I've got some additional comments and a few supporting statements in my rule book philosophy novel below. Rule books need to sound good when read aloud because, whether it's efficient or not, reading the rules to a group is a very common way of learning a game. Also, in general, rule books should be as concise as possible. Some rule books will need lots of explanation of a game is complex, but those explanations should be as concise as possible without sacrificing clarity. I like starting a rule book with the goal of the game. That way, you let readers know what is most important while they are reading. It's also nice for rule books to have a component list with pictures (e.g., backs of cards and the name of that card type), especially if games have many types of cards, tiles, etc. Full setup images with labeled set up instructions are also helpful. Rules should always be broken into clearly defined and marked sections for ease of finding information as well as to to break up text and make it less intimidating. Sections should progress chronologically or by complexity depending on what's appropriate. Visual illustrations are almost always good additions. They make the rules feel more accessible and can help players with different learning styles in addition to adding clarity. I like ending rule books with a quick reference, unless there is a separate one/player aid included. Terms within the rule book should be defined at their first use (even if that first use is outside of a whole section that might be devoted to the term) so that readers don't have to flip through the pages to find a definition. I'm not opposed to terms being defined a second time, especially if it's particularly complex or has some distance from the first definition. Maybe some sort of truncated definition would be appropriate in this case. Like you mentioned, one of my biggest complaints about rule books is when words aren't used consistently or they are used in different ways than you'd expect. Don't call a card a "piece" because no one will know what you're talking about. Also, each term, in general, should only apply to a single aspect or component of the game. Formatting (including spacing, font type, and font size) should also be consistent throughout so as not to cause undue confusion and so it looks nice. Designers blind-test their games, but they should also be focusing on blind testing their rule books during this phase. What wasn't clear in the rules that first-time players were confused about? When did players have to jump around to find what they needed? Did reading the rules confuse or overwhelm players? A professional editor can be really helpful for this specifically and making your rule book more clear, concise, and consistent in general. That's probably more than was necessary (even though I have a lot more to say), but I'm pretty excited about rule books becoming more consistent and clear, and all around better in general. Thanks for starting the discussion and covering some of the basics so solidly.
Great video. I have a few examples to share, apologies for the short novel. 1) indenting and subsections: some friends of mine just bought Big Book of Madness, and lost their first half-dozen games because they were skipping to the next monster as soon as all the curses were dealt with, rather than utilizing the two or three extra turns to do some hand management. This is because the page that explains the movement of the round tracker goes like this: move the tracker; if it lands on space 2-5, take your turn as normal; if it lands on the incantation space, evaluate curses and regardless of how many curses remain, move the tracker to space 1 and draw a new monster. Except the part about moving the tracker to space 1 is on the following page, where you can't see that it's a subsection of "if it lands on the incantation space" so it looks like every step on that page is performed regardless of where the tracker is. 2) misleading picture examples: other friends were playing Pandemic for the first time, and they'd seen us play Legacy a couple times, so they had a sense of it. There's a lot of words in that book, so they mainly skimmed and looked at pictures. There is a page that very helpfully gives a sample turn, using pictures. The final picture shows 4 cards being exchanged for curing one disease, because the player in the example is using the Scientist, and therefore pays one fewer card to take the cure action. Even if you read the text for the image, it says "However, Anna is the Scientist so she pays 4 cards." and nothing about that really says that someone else playing something else would pay 5 cards. You have to read the text for the previous image, which does not depict curing a disease, but where it says you have to pay 5 cards and Anna only has 4. 3) two rule books: I bought Doomtown: Reloaded a few months ago, and we sat down to play it. It has two booklets. One is clearly for rules, and the other was a lengthy walkthrough to give examples of how the game progressed. We read the rules and then tried it out. We played one game unsuccessfully, and a second somewhat successfully, referencing the rulebook and also this weird example booklet. At the end of the second game, we realized that the example booklet was actually a detailed walkthrough for first-time players, and two of the faction decks had been specifically arranged so that you could follow along with the walkthrough drawing the exact cards for the examples. It turns out we really could have used that walkthrough, but we'd already shuffled the cards, because nothing in the rulebook indicated that the seemingly superfluous booklet of examples was actually important for first-timers. Now that booklet is basically worthless. 4) i don't know what heading this falls under, but the rule for determining who wins the combat reveal in Yomi is in two places. The section for combat just says to determine who wins, and then gives you a full page of what beats what. But how do you break ties if you both play an attack with the same speed? Well, that's five pages back in the section that breaks down the card layout, under Speed. That's one instance where a little repetition would be immensely helpful. I'm in the process of designing my own board game, so I will definitely get on the Rule Book Standards bandwagon :)
I really appreciate when a rule book has a summary page on the back that can be used to quickly confirm key points of the rules. Saving you having to dive into the book mid game to look up something but they do often miss things that are important but easy to forget if you aren't playing as often. My game group likes to go back and play Arkham Horror every now and then and the back page is missing the part that tells you how each kind of monster moves. Then i have to hold up the game trying to find this information hidden in the deep depths of the rulebook
One thing comes to mind watching your video, that as experienced players we not only get progressively better at accessing rulebooks over time, we might also get used to the specific format of certain types of games and/or publishers. I, for instance, play a lot of games from Fantasy Flight Games and I'm crazy about their format with a Learn to Play and a Rules Reference Guide. It suits their convoluted games (whereas other types of games just don't need it *stares at King of Tokyo on the shelf*) and I grown to love them so much, that I sometimes catch myself in hoping that they will rerelease some of their older titles just to get them with the new rulebook format. I know that the new double-rule book hasn't landed well with everyone and I also know that my preference for them also stems from having gotten used to their specific way of structuring the rules and knowing exactly how to find what I need. Particularly useful as I podcast on one individual of their games (Imperial Assault) and I need to be correct and concise when recording.
Great video on a very important topic. I recently bought a game that i still don't understand how to play, let alone win, because of the incredibly badly written rulebook.(Elfquest adventure game) Now there are a couple of things i think would definitely help in explaining and teaching a game: - QuickStart rules: just for teaching the basic mechanics of a game, explain the core rules and then include a basic scenario to just let you jump into the game and let you get a feel for it. -Links to video's that explain a rules section. One rulebook that does that very well is Van Ryder Games: " If i'm going down....." After explaining a few rules it contains a QR code to scan on a mobile Phone or Ipad that just shows you a video how exactly a rule works: absolutely briljant :) -Examples of play: especially with harder rules i would like to see a detailed explanation with pictures -Walktrough: just show a few turns of the game in text, so you can see if you understand the game well enough.
I watched the dice tower play pandemic legacy (after I played of course.) Tom picked up the player pieces and dropped one. That was first player. That's how I play every game now.
For first player (or to resolve ties) I use an old set of The Great Dalmuti cards, so they are numbered 1-12 + Joker. Lowest card goes first, but if someone draws the Joker they can choose to go first or last. We usually don't to anything with more than 12 players (for obvious reasons) so this works pretty well.
I love to see a set up guide with examples. How the board and pieces should be set up and the player boards as well as one sample play turn. I also love to see how to store the game if it comes with a nice insert. A rule index is nice too or a reference guide so its quick to find a rule clarification when needed except for having to thumb thru the whole book again.
I used to think the starting player rules were silly. "Last person who was sick," "Last person underground," etc etc. We typically randomly choose anyway, and I think a lot of groups might do this if they play on a regular basis because its such an easy house rule to make. But when I played Abyss, we were all guessing what the first player gimmick would be, and it turned out to be "Randomly Choose." I had all my pearls on "Last person to go swimming." It was kind of a let down, and if I can get all high-minded for a moment, it almost took us out of the feel of the game. So now I feel like the silly first player rules should be there. Its not hurting anybody, it can/should fit the theme, and we're all going to randomize anyway after the first play or two.
I just want to say redefining basic terms can work beautifully in a rule book if it is thematic and helpful. My example is Android:Netrunner - they redefine 'Draw Pile', 'Hand', and 'Discard Pile' as R&D, HQ, and the Archives OR as Stack, Grip and Heap. This means that some cards become more nice (legwork would be 'make a run on the corporation's hand' instead of 'HQ') and also that after you get the 7-10 or so key terms, information density can increase and it sounds far cooler
Oh god so many things! Besides the clarity of the writer rules, as a graphic designer I'm a stickler for good consistent layout and typography. A clear hierarchy of information, reasonable point size and a legible typeface are essential. Do NOT justify text unless you know how to do it properly without creating huge gaps between words. Pay attention to line spacing and how your headings and sub headings relate to the paragraphs. Ensure that all examples look the same, and that capitalisation is consistent. These are all principals of basic typesetting that unfortunately get forgotten in a lot of rule books, but can make a wall of text much more approachable and digestible.
I'm not a huge player myself, so I haven't read a lot of rule books. But I have discovered in some of them there's a section at the end where common questions are answered, like for example special abilities available in the game. And it is so satisfying, when you have a little hesitation, to find the answer right there. Some might say that if there are hesitations, then the rule book isn't well made, but there are some situations where doubt can take us. I was thinking of Pandemic: The Cure or King of Tokyo.
Love the video. I agree with most of the issues you guys described. The translations one is the thing that most suffers here in Brazilian publishers... The translators are actually native Portuguese speakers, the problem is the revision is so awful that they simply translate it WRONG. I mean, sometimes the translated rules mean exactly the opposite of what the original says, or just some incredibly important detail is lost... In Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, there is a card whose text is literally half English, half Portuguese... And the publisher just put out an errata, no recall, no replacement...
Thank you Rodney for making a lot games more friendly to approach. Having the rules and the mechanics explained clearly makes a big difference. On the video subject - A new game i just got "Ashes: Rise of the Phoenixborn " the Rule book doesn't explain anything how to play with 3 or 4 players. It's printed on the box 2-4 players. I really would love to introduce this game to my little group of friends. Any Help would be appreciated.
Assault on Doomrock has an excellent rule book! Every question we had during the game answered easily. The index was literally the best I've ever seen. A rule book all gaming companies should try to emulate in my opinion.
On the first player front, I like it the best when a game includes a thematic first player mechanic, but explicitly allows you the option to randomly pick first player. Everybody's happy, that way. Speaking of first players, I think it's a good idea for games with an age range that includes kids to state whether going first or last is easier. Playing Zombie Dice with my friends' 9-year-old son and his friends while babysitting, I read the rules and realized that going last was a huge advantage. The 9-year-olds always wanted to go first, of course; I had to explain the advantage of going last. I've played a lot of games, so this was easy for me to figure out (just like it would be easy for everyone watching this video to figure out, I'm guessing), but a lot of parents probably wouldn't catch this sort of thing, and they'd end up letting the kids go first, thinking they're giving them a leg up. Point being, a family game should try to help parents understand good ways to help their kids play the game.
Part of the hobby is decrypting the rulebooks. I have to admit that i like the whole brainteaser and thinking gameplay examples in your head to understand all the small details. Many times i had to get to some sort of FAQ in bgg to clarify some of them though.
When there are different types of cards, the components list should do a good job of separating them and showing each one. So, if they refer to "curse cards" and "character cards" later, you can see exactly which ones they are. (Do they have different backs, or the same - if the same, how do we differentiate?)
I like the Ikea approach to my rules - meaning give me a good visual example...yes, the text is important, but if you can get the concept from a good graphic I think that is they way most people learn.
Tile vs token Tile is used to add to the game board, token denotes something. Usually size is a good indicator. If you want an interesting rulebook to study, try the AH 1830. It is one of my favorite games, but there are some REAL issues in that rule book. I can cope if you don't use "standard terms," but only if you create your own. Don't take a term we all use and make it something else. This is a good video, guys.
One thing I think rule books do right is when they have a separate rules summary. That way if I already know how to play, and either haven't played in a while or someone asks a question, I don't have to go digging through 20 pages of rules to find a one sentence clarification or reminder. I can just look at a one or two page quick reference guide to get right back into the action.
One the start player thing (YES I do have an app to chose some one) . Those "last person to do X" can be cute or funny, but sometimes they are pretty obscure meaning with the same group over multiple plays, the same person always will be first player.
I dislike when a publisher/designer assumes people know things about the game due to them play testing the game a thousand times. Then later putting up errata to clarify what should have been in the rules to begin with. I think publishers should have someone outside the loop learn the game from a rulebook then adjust from there.
You guys are going to LOVE Dawn Of The Zeds 3rd edition. I watched the unboxing video and there are FIVE rule books!!! Plus Player Aid cards and Quick Reference sheets. This going to be the Mage Knight of zombie games. Hahaha
My big sister made a dice game, where the same thing (dice) can represent 3 different things: the one you have thrown, those that you have in your hand, or those that you put away to use on the next round. I don't think that it is all that confusing if you just keep the next round dices in a place where you wouldn't accidentally take it and think that it is a hand dice.
Hey Rodney! Thank you very much for this! I´ve been waiting a long time for the topic on rule books! I am very critical about rulebooks so here some of my thoughts. Firstly, when you speak of rounds and turns, I completely agree. Let´s take Power Grid for example where it says, “The game is played over several rounds. Each round of the game has five phases. In each phase, all players take their actions in the order specified for the phase before the game continues with the next phase.” So, to me this is very confusing because you are going around the players several times in one round. Why not just the “Auction round”, “buying resources round” and so forth? You mentioned phases in your video; would you say that a phase is greater than a round? It seems greater to me. And then, the game is played in three major steps where the rules are slightly different and changes when a certain criteria is met; witch is also confusing to me because a step just seems so small. When it comes to first players, although sometimes humorous, non-random first player criteria is just unfair, especially when you frequently play with the same group of people, as it is in my case, usually the same player will go first. On our game nights, the first game we usually just roll a die and the highest number goes first. On the second game and so on, the previous winner gets to go first and the previous last place chooses the game to play! Tie breaking! As yourself, I do not like shared victories. I like the competitiveness. So the more tiebreaking criteria the better. However, the criteria has to be related to your performance in the actual game, not “play again” as you mentioned or “roll the dice, the highest number wins”, as I have seen in a game once, LOL. Me and my board gaming friends have been playing for a few years now (probably around 80-100 game nights so far), and we devised a ranking system to keep track of our performance. In our system, tiebreakers are especially important because we use them to tiebreak the second place until the last place also. This is really fun because it gives players that are not doing so well in the game (especially long games) an incentive to play their very best till the end! On the translated rule books, I completely agree! English is not my native language, i´m from Brazil, but I have lived many years abroad (including British Columbia!). So, on occasion, when playing a Portuguese or Spanish version of a game, I see something on the rule book that just doesn’t seem right, and when I suspect it’s a bad translation, i´m usually right! So I generally just download the English rule book from the internet. Even if the game is not originally in English, the English language versions are usually much better translated than the ones translated to Spanish or Portuguese. Ok. Finally, the one thing that most rule books lack is a section where they explain the application of certain rules to the game. Situations that come up during game play where the basic rule explanation isn´t enough or involves a conflict of rules and therefore requires further explanation. Those situations you generally have to search on FAQs on the internet to get an answer. I know that it is very hard to anticipate every possible game play situation and put it on the rule book, but some happen so frequently that it is hard to believe that it didn’t come up in play testing. So if it came up during the play tests why not put it in the rule book. Some rule books already do so, but many more don´t. So ultimately, we have to resort the FAQs on the internet or just establish our own rules. However, it would be much nicer to have an official saying. One last thing: reference guides (or cheat sheets)! In my opinion, this is the most awesome thing the rule books can have. It just helps a lot! A good example is 7 Wonders, one of the best rule books I have seen. Thank for reading!
Rulebooks are my #1 board gaming pet peeve. I do appreciate a Table of Contents with a rulebook - and an index for the longer rulebooks would be nice too. DEFINITELY would appreciate an English speaking translator.
My issue with the repetition is that if it is phrased differently enough, it can sometimes read like a different rule (or some variation) and it makes you feel (or me feel) that I've misunderstood something
Two things: One, if you are going to put that thematic start player rule, make sure it is decisive. Don't go "The player who lives in the biggest house starts", and then players will be "but we live together, what do we do?". I also have read one rule that went "Choose start player by any adequate method. We recommend pistols at dawn." And two, I prefer the games with no tie-breakers at all, but I see it is a matter of taste. Another rulebook, of a recent game, goes "If you played three competitions, use the third highest score to break the tie. If the third highest score is also tied, then that is quite remarkable." And that's it! The rules end. It's quite remarkable and what? Doesn't even say share the victory! Another common sentence that always gets comments is "place the board in the center of the table". Like it has to be on the center! if it's off-center, you might as well asterisk the game! :P
I agree but for Netrunner there is a good reason to call the different roles "things" by different names. This is to keep the language on cards consistent. Only the Runners hand is called "Grip" the Corporations "hand" is called "HQ". There are actually some situations where funny thins have occurred and have then been considered according to the rules (even though they make absolutely no sense) simply because the language was not specific enough. Some examples, the ID corp Tennin can place advancement counters on the Runners cards. The Runner Program Panchatantra can give ICE subtypes that ICE don't have e.g. it can give it the subtype Connection... Keep making great videos! =D
4:00 they should make it so that the more experienced player or the person who read the rules more should go first so that way they can describe it to the players as they do their turn
+carter grantham Yeah, when I'm teaching a game to people, I generally go first and explain to them that very rationale. Then they can see how a turn works and sort of translate the rules into actual game play. Sometimes it's an advantage to go first, sometimes it's a disadvantage. I disclose which one it is so they can opt out if they want and go first instead.
I agree with Pep about the 1st player rule. But i don't mind random starting player, but I've seen rule books completely ignore addressing who the starting player should be completely, which is really annoying.
My biggest problem is when there is no quick reference on the back of the book or like a separate front/back page. Some games have so many little rules that are hard to remember for newer players. Using Arkham Horror for example, the back of the rule book DOES have a cheat sheet but it doesn't include many things. Like monster movement for example. I feel like that would be necessary to have on the back for a quick reference. It would also be nice to explain what all the little decks are on the back as well (the common items, spells, etc.)
I second your point about translations needing to be gone over by a native English speaker. My favorite solo game, Friday, is haunted to this day by the 'false friend' problem of "aktuel" (the German for "current") having been translated into English as "actual." So you have references to "the actual turn," and "the actual Hazard." I think there are about 30 threads on this in the Friday forums, over on BGG.
It's interesting... I agree a lot of what you all talked about in the video, but that it only works for board/card games. Miniatures games, gamers have really gone out of their way to find an exploit ambiguity. So having the rules mentioned over and over... sometimes helps.
It would be great to hear your thoughts on particular rulebooks that you thought were done well along with any particular elements that make them stand out from the crowd.
Betrayal at House on the Hill is an interesting example of generic tokens being good. In edition 1, every monster had its own token and the game was kinda annoying when you were looking for the last Bee. In edition 2, they were replaced with generic coloured tokens that change based on the Haunt. Change of token use - yes. Is it better - in this case, yes.
Tiles get tesselated? Tiles are a surface on which other things happen or can be placed, >> "Table" >> {can contain several} >> "Board" >> {can contain several} >> "Tile" - a game may omit boards and/or tiles - All can have defined "spaces" which give context and meaning to items placed there. This space may or may not be explicitly delimited Items can be anything that is used by a game mechanic - dice - cards - tokens - pieces - coins - figures - meeples - avatars - crystals - resources - etc...
A bit rules pet peeve of mine is grammar errors or misspelled words, especially if the error is on a card that I have to stare at every time I play. Speaking of cards, some games like Magic the Gathering have additional rules on cards that can be equally confusing or unclear, especially because as the game is constantly updated, so are the rules or keywords that can change the meaning of a term. This can also be true for games that have multiple editions and later rules will trump those of earlier versions.
"In the event of a tie, the tied players immediately engage in a fistfight, flipping the table as needed to make room. The first player to land a punch to the head is the winner. If 3 minutes elapse with neither player landing a punch, then the players share the victory."
Yup, as "rules lackey" for our group, I really appreciate good and bad rulebooks. A few points - as someone pointed out below, the rounds/turns terms can be interchangeable - 1 turn is X rounds does make sense, but as an old AD&D player I can switch between the 2 fine - *however* establish which terminology you are using firmly, early on. For me, the components list is used at 2 points - when I first open the game, to check it's all there, and sometimes when setting up, if there are a lot of bits + pieces, to remind me what is what. Put _nothing_ else in that section. Be consistent - in your layout (e.g. the mentioned usage of italics and bold text - though, to me, italics signify examples and bold emphasise rule applications/usage), in your terminology, etc. Lastly - put a good index in. There are many rulebooks that are, otherwise, not great that have been saved by a decent index. Even those where rules have been dropped in all over the place can be redeemed by this - especially in games where you will need to look up rules quite often. Also, in the case of games with frequent rules lookups, I don't care how well your rulebook is structured, *please put an index in*.
I personally prefer random p1 over "Last person to X". In my experience, "Last person to X" has wound up being the same person over and over (since the condition doesn't change, and our group's routines don't change often either). Also, by now all of the board game players I know have Chwazi installed on their phones, which makes picking a random player super easy.
I know this is not popular but I kinda like the split rule books FFG does. It gives you core rules and then teaches you the rest by doing. It makes it take less time to get the game to the table and people feel more engaged.
+Watch It Played Thanks for responding to my super late comment. I can't always keep up with all the videos but I do watch later if I can. I appreciate you coming back to an old video and reading comments. :)
"Few that maybe, weren't as good as the could have been. Or some that were horrible" And there is Myth. 3:30 - The problem our group runs into with these type of themed starting player selections are often it means the same person goes first every time. Ticket to Ride: Person who's traveled the most. I was in the Navy, no one else in the game group even comes close.
Here's one of those things that's like the Band-aid problem: tapping. Wizards of the Coast owns the rights to the term "tapping," so games have to bend over backwards to use words like "activate" or "refresh" when they mean "tap" and "untap." Of course, as soon as you start playing, you'll just say, "I untap--I mean refresh my creatures." That's when you wish we could just let it go and let everyone use "tap."
Yet to the non-gamer / I experienced gamer, activating a card would probably make a lot more sense that to 'tap' a card, whereby they may think you literally rest your finger on it.
I would like to know some of the best rule books you have ran into? Not the best games but the best job at explaining the rules through the book. Here is some items that come to my mind. - Pandemic - Imperial Settlers - 7 Wonders and 7 wonders Duels - Champions of midgard - Dice city
A rules index at the back of the book with all the keywords people would think to look up for that particular game I would like to showcase a game that exemplifies the format in which a rule book index should be written. Now, I wasn't really a huge fan of the game but while looking up rules, the boardgame "Assault on Doomrock" had the best rules index I've ever seen. I feel like, during playtesting they told everyone to write down any questions they had about a rule and a keyword they might look up if an index existed. Compiled that list and put it into the back of the book. A rules index should point you exactly where you need to go. And shouldn't have to tell you that 3 different parts of a mechanic are split up on different pages.
For me, I like the new way Fantasy Flight things are done (Rules / Reference books). The worst thing while playing is to have dig through a book to find the bit you need, especially with new games that you're not 100 percent familiar with. To have a fairly comprehensive alphabetical list of pretty much any term is a godsend. (However, I do know where you are coming from re: your wanting to read the thing completely before starting.)
If you want to talk about headers and bullet point rules take a look at ASG. Some examples are Twilight Struggle, Labyrinth, and Fire on the Lake. Granted they are complicated games, and the headers help you find sections since they reference, but it is a true rules struggle a lot of the times. Love the games though.
Everyone always references Netrunner and it's true - It's what killed a game for my wife as the terms just confused her so it was 1) learn the terms and then 2) Learn the way the game plays. We never did get to 2 :(.
+The Angel of Dice I find the solution there is to have a human explain the rules, drop all the fancy terms then slowly integrate them. If you're going too fast back up; also when integrating use the terms together. ex: I'm going after R&D; that's your deck.
The goal of a rulebook should be to explain rules in the most efficient way possible. Most of the pet peeves here (and mine as well) are ones that make it more difficult for a new game owner to understand how to play their new game. I don't know if you've played the game Through the Ages but in my opinion it's not the most complex game on the planet.... but in my experience so far, it has the most complex set of rules I have ever waded through, which sadly means it ends up on the shelf more than other games.
My personal issue with most rule books, is lack of examples. I personally find it easier, and learn a game more quickly, when the rule book has an example of a round of play.
The worst rulebook fail is when the company doesn't even include a proper printed rulebook (I'm pointing the finger at you FFG for XCOM). online rules are for video games, not board games. This is now a total deal breaker for my future purchases.
+Maui Chris Meh, XCOM doesn't bother me one bit. It has a super nifty tutorial which teaches you both the game rules AND the necessary app at the same time. Everything is in the app. Very handy.
+Rainer Ahlfors it makes it a pain to look something up and when someone wants to see something, you have to stop the whole game & hand them the laptop when you should just be able to pass the paper rulebook. if it works for you, that's great. i personally hate it
- The only two times a rule book should repeat things are when giving an example or if it has a rules or turn summary; on the reverse side, sometimes the only time a rule is presented is during an example. - I really hate walls of text, and I especially hate when the wall of text is done in a crazy font or font that changes randomly throughout the rules (as much as I enjoy the game, Epic Spell Wars does this); it gets difficult to discern what items are rules and what is for flavor. My friends and I played and really loved Champions of Midgard last weekend, but I have a few problems with the rule book (I don't mean to pick on the game, and in all fairness some of it was partially our fault for rushing set up and rules explanation, but since it was from our last game night, finding out about the/our mistakes afterwards is fresh in my mind): - We did not notice the spaces next to the Runesmith to put face up cards, and at no point is filling them mentioned in the rule book (as were all of the other flipped cards), so we drew from the top of the face down pile if we went there. - The use of favor tokens is only explained during a part that was originally passed over because it looked like it was only a combat example; there is an "appendix" section of the rule book, but it is not even listed there. - The final scoring summary lists "Runes (used and unused)," as though they are scored even if they were used, but during a play through with the designer, he directly stated that only unused runes were supposed to be scored.
Power Grid uses the term "turn" in such a confusing way. Their turn 1, turn 2, and turn 3 mean early stage of the game, mid stage, and end stage. And the rule book in the deluxe version doesn't explain the "turn" term until almost in the las few pages.
For repetition I like to be told once; if you tell me again do it in a reminder box so that it is not part of the flow of text. For renaming of terms I actually like it when it adds to an immersive theme. If there's no thematic benefit, or even if it adds theme to a game the isn't immersive anyway, then I'm not a fan.
The use of "turn" in Thunder Alley is a throwback to old-school wargames. If you go back to the 1970s and 1980s games from publishers like SPI or Avalon Hill, a game usually comprised a series of "turns" (or "game turns") with each player having one or more "phases" (or sometimes "segments") in the turn. That usage seems to have gone out of favor now, and I've come to prefer the new usage ("rounds" made up of "turns"), but there was a transition period when it seemed really strange and confusing to me. The new usage also can get convoluted when a game has the players' actions interspersed with each other (for example, a sequence like: Player 1 missile, Player 2 missile, P1 Leader, P2 Leader, P1 melee, P2 melee). In that case, what is "Player 1's turn"? Do we speak of the "Player 1 missile turn", "Player 2 melee turn", etc.? In this case it seems natural to call those phases, in which case there's not really any opportunity for confusion with "turns" that comprise a full sequence of phases. These kinds of gameplay sequences were pretty common back in the old days, so perhaps that's why their terminology evolved the way it did.
In the rules for my Castles of Burgundy they claim that the game is played over 5 phases that are played in 5 rounds each. But I, on the other hand, claim that there are 5 rounds played and they consist of 5 phases each. I'm very meticulous in telling players that when I teach the game, and they agree! When it comes to translations of games we have had some bad luck in Sweden when some games have been translated. Quite often publishers make Nordic editions of games and they have included rules in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, and too often I have found errors in the Swedish translations. Luckily those three languages are a bit similar so as a Swede I can always double check with Norwegian or Danish, and unfortunately I have been forced to do that and has realized that the translations of rules could be different. It's enough with just a single tiny word being wrong, and the game won't work as planned!
Do not hide away the starting components for players in a paragraph on the setup page! Put it in a box that's easy to see. Starting hand size for cards, starting money for first player, second player etc.
I love it when a rulebook includes an illustration of a completed setup of the game. I want to see more of this.
I always treat the first player rule as a suggestion. Many times when playing a new game it makes more sense for an experienced player to go first to give less experienced players ideas for what they need to do on their turn. A lot of times I'll just ask if anyone wants to go first. Great discussion gentleman!
Easily my favourite tie break for Arboretum - the final criteria if the others still haven't determined a winner, is that the tied players each plant a tree and then come back in 5 years to see which has grown the tallest! (Though it doesn't say what to do if both trees are the exact same height...)
Dig it up and measure the roots
Rather than focussing on negative stuff, here's some stuff I like;
- When a rule book has examples that go along with the rules, this helps us visual learners map things out.
- A quick guide on the back/quick start guide
- When rules for specific situations are separated out, not integrated into the rules (i.e. variants, 2-player/solitaire rules)
- When a rulebook is well designed, this doesn't mean paying loads for a graphic designer, just make sure they're are well laid out in a good, clear font (if I was being negative I might mention Queen games as a culprit here, but as I'm not I wont.)
- When terms referring to the players are written in gender-neutral nouns, i.e. they, them, their. Some get wound up in he/her his/hers etc.
+Mark Cooke I think both should be done, positives and negatives. I agree with your points above.
- The way I like most rule books is just how I like to teach games. Explain the simple concepts then walk through the rules in turn order referencing situational very specific things to a catalog later in the book.
- I also like when rule books point to a place to get updated rules. So any modifications or corrections can easily be gathered.
- Finally I want to 2nd the reference on the back of the book. Even when I know a game it is good to set out for others to have access to that are new.
+Mark Cooke "When a rulebook is well designed, this doesn't mean paying loads for a graphic designer, just make sure they're are well laid out in a good,
clear font"
I have to disagree with you on this point. If a rule book is well-designed, then it does mean having a good graphic designer, and the good ones do get paid pretty well (as they should).
Especially if you want multiple illustrated examples to help the visual learners like you and me (amen, brother!), laying out text around lots of images, often of different sizes and shapes, will require a seriously talented graphic designer, if you want it to flow smoothly for an uninterrupted reading experience.
I'd actually list this as one of my gripes about rule books: Not enough companies seem willing to spend the money on quality graphic design.
+mjschryver yeah, totally agree with you. I suppose what I mean is, if a company is not willing to spend the money to have a well designed rulebook they should at least just follow basic design rules. The Queen games rulebooks I have are an example of how this is not done well. within one section of rules, that are all about the same thing, they might have a few different fonts, these fonts could then be in bold/italics etc., the text offset in different directions and example boxes that are not near the rules they relate to. I guess my point was more that you shouldn't need a graphic designer to tell you that it looks shoddy! However, my preference would be that they would pay up and get something good, Super Motherload and Euphoria (actually, anything Stonemaier!) are a couple of my favourite rulesets
"- When a rulebook is well designed, this doesn't mean paying loads for a graphic designer, just make sure they're are well laid out in a good, clear font (if I was being negative I might mention Queen games as a culprit here, but as I'm not I wont.)"
Most people don't know what makes a text they themselves wrote easier or harder to read - but I'm a biased graphic design fanatic.
I had a hearty laugh at "'Play again'? What is this, a cup of coffee?". It's okay Rodney, I never win at Roll-Up-The-Rim either.
Rodney is probably the best person to learn games online. That is a gift you have my friend. I can only imagine how difficult and how much work it takes to make some of those watch it played.
There are numerous ways to decide starting player randomly or semi-randomly. My favorite way in big games (like 10 player secret hitler) but also work with small numbers is what we call Ready, Steady, Shoot!
All players ready their imaginary guns and shoot simultaneously. There are three options, shoot yourself, shoot someone else or shoot straight up in the air. Resolve as follows: Anyone shot (by themselves or other player) is out.
One exception: A player who is shot by another player and also shoots themself is protected and instead the shooter or shooters are instead out.
Continue until one player is left, if all players are out in one round, redo the round.
This makes it a kind of multiplayer Rock, Paper, Scissors that works even on 2. Other more semi-randomly can be: grab a player piece of each color, hide them in your hands and have another player draw one without looking.
But yeah, as other people mentioned, there are apps aswell :)
My pet peeves - Not having the back of the rule book be a phase / round summary (if there are no player aids with this info). Lack of examples if it's not obvious how certain aspects are played (you can never be too clear).
+TheGameBoyGeek - Hi Quality Hi Energy Board Game Reviews we are in sync.
Back of the book and player aids should ideally cover these things:
- phase/action/rounds
- end game trigger, if that's a thing
- scoring
and usefully:
- anything basic stuff (setup details) you forget when you haven't played for a while
+TheGameBoyGeek - Hi Quality Hi Energy Board Game Reviews yes! exactly...
+TheGameBoyGeek OH I totally agree with you on this.
agreed! need a summary sheet or player aid.
I prefer random first players, I hate when a game says "youngest player first" or something like that. I always play with the same game group and my friend James is the youngest player so he would always be going first.
We played Small World the other day and that says "the person with the pointiest ears goes first". Wouldn't you know it James has the pointiest ears too, and it's not like anyone else's ears are going to get pointier by the next time we play!
+Ken Adams
Well ... I read/heard somewhere that "the youngest begins" means "it's easier to be the first player" while "the oldest begins" means "it's more difficult to go first but ... he/she is older so wiser so it's not a problem for him/her".
And I agree: games giving you the criterion to choose the 1st player can cause weird situation where you ask at loud, for example, "who is the most suspicious-looking around the table ?".
I much prefer:
a) choosing the 1st so the beginner is the last and sees what the "experiment" ones do,
b) or determining by drawing a card or rolling a dice.
+Ken Adams I don't mind random. We don't use dice. Just take one token or meeple of each player, shake them in your hand and drop one. First player.
+Josh McDowell I must be the Anti-Pep - Josh, I completely agree with you; we do exactly the same thing though sometimes one of us has to delve into the clammy hand of another to pick out a player piece. The stupid ways some rules suggest first played really annoys me, especially in games where first player can be pretty powerful, as I tend to play with the same group and so it would always be the same first player whenever we play that game.
Anyone who comes to my house for board games gets a D20 for the night. Highest number always goes first. Ties = roll-off
+Ken Adams Have you tried the app Chwazi to determine start player? I'm enamored with it.
Oh my gosh I completely agree with you Rodney on tie-breakers! Don't stop at 1 or 2 tie breakers then call it a draw. Make sure there is definitely one winner at the end!!!!!! Gah!
I think repetition is intended to be useful for when you might be looking up a rule later (while playing) and information referenced in a different section would help for the rule you're researching.
The repetition also helps avoid the ping-ponging Choose-Your-Own-Adventure stuff you gripe about later.
"Chwazi" app for Android is perfect for picking who goes first. Also can pick teams if you can't decide on those.
Chwazi is a wonderful app for choosing first player!
Nice video, this was good stuff!
My 2 cents, from largest to smallest:
Rounds, Phases, Turns/Actions.
Also, not sure if mentioned elsewhere, but it seems a HUGE challenge to writing a good rule books is balancing two somewhat conflicting objectives:
Being a game tutorial.
Also being a rules reference guide.
What I would like to see in a rules book is a complete round walkthrough that you set up and go through the motions and learn all the mechanics and systems in the game. Don't need a whole game walkthrough, just one round.
Tokens/tiles - Tokens are used to mark spaces (generally). Tiles are (generally) played or played on.
Great episode! I'm a graphic designer for tabletop rulebooks. The process of interpreting text into visual diagrams forces a much degree of scrutiny than straight proofreading. If there are any ambiguities, I have to ask for clarifications to make the diagram as clear as possible. Hopefully that spares the future player the trouble, though!
You are doing gods work Daniel. Thank you!
@@WatchItPlayed Whoa this is a flashback. Thanks!
That's why technical writing is an actual skill you learn in language and communication courses. I agree with you about the action-turn-round thing which is often confusing, especially to non-native English users like me. Another thing is I hate is the excessive use of text to describe concepts that are best presented in flow chart or pictures. There's no point to list 11 steps and then put several long sentences under each to tell you what to draw, what to place on the board and then do what. Just make a flow chart with arrows, colorful blocks with little texts and extra information in bullet points.
I typically don't watch the table talk videos, but this one peaked my interest. Very well done! And I think it was valuable feedback delivered in the right way.
i love rule books that include interesting and humorous flavor texts such as Alchemist and Grand Austria Hotel
Where do you like seeing the "How to win" section -- at the beginning of the rules or at the end? I like it at the beginning because it puts the rest of the rules into context : you know how they work to achieve victory.
+Emanuel de Matos
I think a rulebook should have an introduction like "In this game, players are ...... in order to .... and .... At the end of the game, the one who .... wins" and then you have the chronological explanation of the rules and the details of the "how to win" at the end.
+Emanuel de Matos I like to see the general at the beginning, but the specifics at the end, preferably on the back cover so it's easy to look at during or at the end of the game.
The back page of the rulebook should be used for important reference material.
I would just like everyone to agree on either/or so I can find it easily. :)
i suggest the use of Bold for important rules, or a other colour. also if some rule is complicated give a excample with a image ilustrating that excample. a clear image tels me more than a 100 words. funyest draw condition i saw was: go outside, whoever digs a pit of 1 meter depth the fastest wins, wel its a digging game so it is theme full at least.
one thing publishers forget to wrtite is a rule summary at the end. for example: in pandemic or arkham horror you have a lot of different ways to lose but one way to win, so after you read about the 10th way that you can lose you forget the first ways to lose so you have to start again hoping that you could memorise all the different ways of losing and how to prevent them as well as actually winning the game.
I love step by step guides that you can easily follow in the correct order to play a round. such as fief France 1429's book. so easy
I work as a "Game Expert" at a board game cafe, so I teach my fair share of games. I really appreciate rule books that have a summary of the "easily forgotten" information on either the first or last page. I'm talking about details like how many cards to deal to players, hand size limit, how many victory points you need, what triggers end game, etc. These are details that are hard to remember because it varies from game to game (and sometimes varies within a game depending on player count). Every second I spend looking something up in a rule book is a second that the table is disengaging from the activity, which is the opposite of what should be happening! As a Game Expert, it's my job to ensure everyone is having the most fun possible, and I love a rulebook that helps me get the game going quickly!
Rounds vs turns is confusing for some of us old AD&D players... A turn consisted of 10 rounds :-) But yeah, for board games, everyone takes their turn and then the round ends.
Of the most recent games that I have seen, I think that the rulebook for Panamax was one of the best that I have seen. The game setup was pretty good and the rules were well explained.
Here is the information from our earlier tweet discussion if you would like to use it in the video:
As far as Orleans goes, after translating the FAQ, the original German terms are Ortskarten (place cards) and Personenplättchen (people tiles). While Karte means card, Platte can mean a whole lot of things, from a piece of wood, a board, a tile, etc. It is tricky trying to stay true to the German while translating. Especially since game bit terminology isn’t standardized. Even more terms from the original German rules for Orleans: Warenplättchen, Bürgerplättchen, and Technikplättchen (goods, citizens, technology) all have Platte. Stundenglaskarten (event cards) has Karte instead of Platte. Where is the line between a literal translation of rules (into good English), and standardization of English terms for board game rule books? Does the hobby need standardization?
Also: my wish for rulebooks is that they follow the same general course as a person teaching the game. Sometimes it is very difficult to read a rulebook and then figure out how to teach the game to others. I love it when you can learn how to teach a game to others from the rulebook!
Thanks for the great discussion!
I understand this experience is not typical of all companies, but I worked for a company where I designed instructions for a game/product.
Instructional designers typically have the last say when writing out the instructions. I wrote out one set of instructions that were primarily pictorial. After submitting the completed rules for review from my supervisor, other people had a say as to how I did the layout. First, the game/product designers asked for changes to be made on terminology and layout. Those changes were made. Second, my supervisor and the brand managers asked for changes to be made on the layout and content. Those changes were made. Lastly, the marketing team adds their two cents about how the instructions should be laid out and that multiple language translations need to be included within the layout without adding additional pages. Those changes are then made.
It was a very frustrating work experience sufficed to say. Writing rules is important but the "too many cooks in the kitchen" makes the process arduous. The only thing I can recommend to independent game designers is not to make the instructional design process complicated; larger companies are harder to affect.
Picture of game set-up is always nice. I believe it is Z-man that does this well
As a professional editor, I have a lot to say about rule books. :) You guys did a nice job covering some of the most important general aspects of good rules - clarity and consistency. I've got some additional comments and a few supporting statements in my rule book philosophy novel below.
Rule books need to sound good when read aloud because, whether it's efficient or not, reading the rules to a group is a very common way of learning a game.
Also, in general, rule books should be as concise as possible. Some rule books will need lots of explanation of a game is complex, but those explanations should be as concise as possible without sacrificing clarity.
I like starting a rule book with the goal of the game. That way, you let readers know what is most important while they are reading.
It's also nice for rule books to have a component list with pictures (e.g., backs of cards and the name of that card type), especially if games have many types of cards, tiles, etc.
Full setup images with labeled set up instructions are also helpful.
Rules should always be broken into clearly defined and marked sections for ease of finding information as well as to to break up text and make it less intimidating. Sections should progress chronologically or by complexity depending on what's appropriate.
Visual illustrations are almost always good additions. They make the rules feel more accessible and can help players with different learning styles in addition to adding clarity.
I like ending rule books with a quick reference, unless there is a separate one/player aid included.
Terms within the rule book should be defined at their first use (even if that first use is outside of a whole section that might be devoted to the term) so that readers don't have to flip through the pages to find a definition. I'm not opposed to terms being defined a second time, especially if it's particularly complex or has some distance from the first definition. Maybe some sort of truncated definition would be appropriate in this case.
Like you mentioned, one of my biggest complaints about rule books is when words aren't used consistently or they are used in different ways than you'd expect. Don't call a card a "piece" because no one will know what you're talking about. Also, each term, in general, should only apply to a single aspect or component of the game.
Formatting (including spacing, font type, and font size) should also be consistent throughout so as not to cause undue confusion and so it looks nice.
Designers blind-test their games, but they should also be focusing on blind testing their rule books during this phase. What wasn't clear in the rules that first-time players were confused about? When did players have to jump around to find what they needed? Did reading the rules confuse or overwhelm players? A professional editor can be really helpful for this specifically and making your rule book more clear, concise, and consistent in general.
That's probably more than was necessary (even though I have a lot more to say), but I'm pretty excited about rule books becoming more consistent and clear, and all around better in general. Thanks for starting the discussion and covering some of the basics so solidly.
Great video. I have a few examples to share, apologies for the short novel.
1) indenting and subsections: some friends of mine just bought Big Book of Madness, and lost their first half-dozen games because they were skipping to the next monster as soon as all the curses were dealt with, rather than utilizing the two or three extra turns to do some hand management. This is because the page that explains the movement of the round tracker goes like this: move the tracker; if it lands on space 2-5, take your turn as normal; if it lands on the incantation space, evaluate curses and regardless of how many curses remain, move the tracker to space 1 and draw a new monster. Except the part about moving the tracker to space 1 is on the following page, where you can't see that it's a subsection of "if it lands on the incantation space" so it looks like every step on that page is performed regardless of where the tracker is.
2) misleading picture examples: other friends were playing Pandemic for the first time, and they'd seen us play Legacy a couple times, so they had a sense of it. There's a lot of words in that book, so they mainly skimmed and looked at pictures. There is a page that very helpfully gives a sample turn, using pictures. The final picture shows 4 cards being exchanged for curing one disease, because the player in the example is using the Scientist, and therefore pays one fewer card to take the cure action. Even if you read the text for the image, it says "However, Anna is the Scientist so she pays 4 cards." and nothing about that really says that someone else playing something else would pay 5 cards. You have to read the text for the previous image, which does not depict curing a disease, but where it says you have to pay 5 cards and Anna only has 4.
3) two rule books: I bought Doomtown: Reloaded a few months ago, and we sat down to play it. It has two booklets. One is clearly for rules, and the other was a lengthy walkthrough to give examples of how the game progressed. We read the rules and then tried it out. We played one game unsuccessfully, and a second somewhat successfully, referencing the rulebook and also this weird example booklet. At the end of the second game, we realized that the example booklet was actually a detailed walkthrough for first-time players, and two of the faction decks had been specifically arranged so that you could follow along with the walkthrough drawing the exact cards for the examples. It turns out we really could have used that walkthrough, but we'd already shuffled the cards, because nothing in the rulebook indicated that the seemingly superfluous booklet of examples was actually important for first-timers. Now that booklet is basically worthless.
4) i don't know what heading this falls under, but the rule for determining who wins the combat reveal in Yomi is in two places. The section for combat just says to determine who wins, and then gives you a full page of what beats what. But how do you break ties if you both play an attack with the same speed? Well, that's five pages back in the section that breaks down the card layout, under Speed. That's one instance where a little repetition would be immensely helpful.
I'm in the process of designing my own board game, so I will definitely get on the Rule Book Standards bandwagon :)
I really appreciate when a rule book has a summary page on the back that can be used to quickly confirm key points of the rules. Saving you having to dive into the book mid game to look up something but they do often miss things that are important but easy to forget if you aren't playing as often. My game group likes to go back and play Arkham Horror every now and then and the back page is missing the part that tells you how each kind of monster moves. Then i have to hold up the game trying to find this information hidden in the deep depths of the rulebook
One thing comes to mind watching your video, that as experienced players we not only get progressively better at accessing rulebooks over time, we might also get used to the specific format of certain types of games and/or publishers.
I, for instance, play a lot of games from Fantasy Flight Games and I'm crazy about their format with a Learn to Play and a Rules Reference Guide. It suits their convoluted games (whereas other types of games just don't need it *stares at King of Tokyo on the shelf*) and I grown to love them so much, that I sometimes catch myself in hoping that they will rerelease some of their older titles just to get them with the new rulebook format.
I know that the new double-rule book hasn't landed well with everyone and I also know that my preference for them also stems from having gotten used to their specific way of structuring the rules and knowing exactly how to find what I need. Particularly useful as I podcast on one individual of their games (Imperial Assault) and I need to be correct and concise when recording.
Great video on a very important topic. I recently bought a game that i still don't understand how to play, let alone win, because of the incredibly badly written rulebook.(Elfquest adventure game)
Now there are a couple of things i think would definitely help in explaining and teaching a game:
- QuickStart rules: just for teaching the basic mechanics of a game, explain the core rules and then include a basic scenario to just let you jump into the game and let you get a feel for it.
-Links to video's that explain a rules section. One rulebook that does that very well is Van Ryder Games: " If i'm going down....." After explaining a few rules it contains a QR code to scan on a mobile Phone or Ipad that just shows you a video how exactly a rule works: absolutely briljant :)
-Examples of play: especially with harder rules i would like to see a detailed explanation with pictures
-Walktrough: just show a few turns of the game in text, so you can see if you understand the game well enough.
Saw mention of Chwazi (iOS randomizer great for turn order) on The Secret Cabal's guild and never looked back.
I watched the dice tower play pandemic legacy (after I played of course.) Tom picked up the player pieces and dropped one. That was first player. That's how I play every game now.
EXACTLY!!!
For first player (or to resolve ties) I use an old set of The Great Dalmuti cards, so they are numbered 1-12 + Joker. Lowest card goes first, but if someone draws the Joker they can choose to go first or last. We usually don't to anything with more than 12 players (for obvious reasons) so this works pretty well.
I love to see a set up guide with examples. How the board and pieces should be set up and the player boards as well as one sample play turn. I also love to see how to store the game if it comes with a nice insert. A rule index is nice too or a reference guide so its quick to find a rule clarification when needed except for having to thumb thru the whole book again.
I used to think the starting player rules were silly. "Last person who was sick," "Last person underground," etc etc. We typically randomly choose anyway, and I think a lot of groups might do this if they play on a regular basis because its such an easy house rule to make. But when I played Abyss, we were all guessing what the first player gimmick would be, and it turned out to be "Randomly Choose." I had all my pearls on "Last person to go swimming." It was kind of a let down, and if I can get all high-minded for a moment, it almost took us out of the feel of the game. So now I feel like the silly first player rules should be there. Its not hurting anybody, it can/should fit the theme, and we're all going to randomize anyway after the first play or two.
I just want to say redefining basic terms can work beautifully in a rule book if it is thematic and helpful. My example is Android:Netrunner - they redefine 'Draw Pile', 'Hand', and 'Discard Pile' as R&D, HQ, and the Archives OR as Stack, Grip and Heap. This means that some cards become more nice (legwork would be 'make a run on the corporation's hand' instead of 'HQ') and also that after you get the 7-10 or so key terms, information density can increase and it sounds far cooler
Oh god so many things!
Besides the clarity of the writer rules, as a graphic designer I'm a stickler for good consistent layout and typography. A clear hierarchy of information, reasonable point size and a legible typeface are essential.
Do NOT justify text unless you know how to do it properly without creating huge gaps between words. Pay attention to line spacing and how your headings and sub headings relate to the paragraphs.
Ensure that all examples look the same, and that capitalisation is consistent.
These are all principals of basic typesetting that unfortunately get forgotten in a lot of rule books, but can make a wall of text much more approachable and digestible.
I'm not a huge player myself, so I haven't read a lot of rule books. But I have discovered in some of them there's a section at the end where common questions are answered, like for example special abilities available in the game. And it is so satisfying, when you have a little hesitation, to find the answer right there. Some might say that if there are hesitations, then the rule book isn't well made, but there are some situations where doubt can take us. I was thinking of Pandemic: The Cure or King of Tokyo.
Love the video. I agree with most of the issues you guys described.
The translations one is the thing that most suffers here in Brazilian publishers... The translators are actually native Portuguese speakers, the problem is the revision is so awful that they simply translate it WRONG. I mean, sometimes the translated rules mean exactly the opposite of what the original says, or just some incredibly important detail is lost... In Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, there is a card whose text is literally half English, half Portuguese... And the publisher just put out an errata, no recall, no replacement...
Thank you Rodney for making a lot games more friendly to approach. Having the rules and the mechanics explained clearly makes a big difference.
On the video subject - A new game i just got "Ashes: Rise of the Phoenixborn " the Rule book doesn't explain anything how to play with 3 or 4 players. It's printed on the box 2-4 players. I really would love to introduce this game to my little group of friends. Any Help would be appreciated.
Assault on Doomrock has an excellent rule book! Every question we had during the game answered easily. The index was literally the best I've ever seen. A rule book all gaming companies should try to emulate in my opinion.
On the first player front, I like it the best when a game includes a thematic first player mechanic, but explicitly allows you the option to randomly pick first player. Everybody's happy, that way.
Speaking of first players, I think it's a good idea for games with an age range that includes kids to state whether going first or last is easier. Playing Zombie Dice with my friends' 9-year-old son and his friends while babysitting, I read the rules and realized that going last was a huge advantage. The 9-year-olds always wanted to go first, of course; I had to explain the advantage of going last.
I've played a lot of games, so this was easy for me to figure out (just like it would be easy for everyone watching this video to figure out, I'm guessing), but a lot of parents probably wouldn't catch this sort of thing, and they'd end up letting the kids go first, thinking they're giving them a leg up.
Point being, a family game should try to help parents understand good ways to help their kids play the game.
Part of the hobby is decrypting the rulebooks. I have to admit that i like the whole brainteaser and thinking gameplay examples in your head to understand all the small details. Many times i had to get to some sort of FAQ in bgg to clarify some of them though.
When there are different types of cards, the components list should do a good job of separating them and showing each one. So, if they refer to "curse cards" and "character cards" later, you can see exactly which ones they are. (Do they have different backs, or the same - if the same, how do we differentiate?)
1st YEEEEESSS
also LOTS AND LOTS of examples and PICTURES
I like the Ikea approach to my rules - meaning give me a good visual example...yes, the text is important, but if you can get the concept from a good graphic I think that is they way most people learn.
lolll love this, fun watching you guys
Tile vs token Tile is used to add to the game board, token denotes something. Usually size is a good indicator. If you want an interesting rulebook to study, try the AH 1830. It is one of my favorite games, but there are some REAL issues in that rule book. I can cope if you don't use "standard terms," but only if you create your own. Don't take a term we all use and make it something else. This is a good video, guys.
One thing I think rule books do right is when they have a separate rules summary. That way if I already know how to play, and either haven't played in a while or someone asks a question, I don't have to go digging through 20 pages of rules to find a one sentence clarification or reminder. I can just look at a one or two page quick reference guide to get right back into the action.
One the start player thing (YES I do have an app to chose some one) . Those "last person to do X" can be cute or funny, but sometimes they are pretty obscure meaning with the same group over multiple plays, the same person always will be first player.
I dislike when a publisher/designer assumes people know things about the game due to them play testing the game a thousand times. Then later putting up errata to clarify what should have been in the rules to begin with. I think publishers should have someone outside the loop learn the game from a rulebook then adjust from there.
You guys are going to LOVE Dawn Of The Zeds 3rd edition. I watched the unboxing video and there are FIVE rule books!!! Plus Player Aid cards and Quick Reference sheets. This going to be the Mage Knight of zombie games. Hahaha
I just want three things. 1. An index. 2. Lots of pictures and diagrams of components and pla y areas mid-game. 3. Lots of game play examples!
My big sister made a dice game, where the same thing (dice) can represent 3 different things: the one you have thrown, those that you have in your hand, or those that you put away to use on the next round. I don't think that it is all that confusing if you just keep the next round dices in a place where you wouldn't accidentally take it and think that it is a hand dice.
Hey Rodney! Thank you very much for this! I´ve been waiting a long time for the topic on rule books! I am very critical about rulebooks so here some of my thoughts.
Firstly, when you speak of rounds and turns, I completely agree. Let´s take Power Grid for example where it says, “The game is played over several rounds. Each round of the game has five phases. In each phase, all players take their actions in the order specified for the phase before the game continues with the next phase.” So, to me this is very confusing because you are going around the players several times in one round. Why not just the “Auction round”, “buying resources round” and so forth? You mentioned phases in your video; would you say that a phase is greater than a round? It seems greater to me. And then, the game is played in three major steps where the rules are slightly different and changes when a certain criteria is met; witch is also confusing to me because a step just seems so small.
When it comes to first players, although sometimes humorous, non-random first player criteria is just unfair, especially when you frequently play with the same group of people, as it is in my case, usually the same player will go first. On our game nights, the first game we usually just roll a die and the highest number goes first. On the second game and so on, the previous winner gets to go first and the previous last place chooses the game to play!
Tie breaking! As yourself, I do not like shared victories. I like the competitiveness. So the more tiebreaking criteria the better. However, the criteria has to be related to your performance in the actual game, not “play again” as you mentioned or “roll the dice, the highest number wins”, as I have seen in a game once, LOL. Me and my board gaming friends have been playing for a few years now (probably around 80-100 game nights so far), and we devised a ranking system to keep track of our performance. In our system, tiebreakers are especially important because we use them to tiebreak the second place until the last place also. This is really fun because it gives players that are not doing so well in the game (especially long games) an incentive to play their very best till the end!
On the translated rule books, I completely agree! English is not my native language, i´m from Brazil, but I have lived many years abroad (including British Columbia!). So, on occasion, when playing a Portuguese or Spanish version of a game, I see something on the rule book that just doesn’t seem right, and when I suspect it’s a bad translation, i´m usually right! So I generally just download the English rule book from the internet. Even if the game is not originally in English, the English language versions are usually much better translated than the ones translated to Spanish or Portuguese.
Ok. Finally, the one thing that most rule books lack is a section where they explain the application of certain rules to the game. Situations that come up during game play where the basic rule explanation isn´t enough or involves a conflict of rules and therefore requires further explanation. Those situations you generally have to search on FAQs on the internet to get an answer. I know that it is very hard to anticipate every possible game play situation and put it on the rule book, but some happen so frequently that it is hard to believe that it didn’t come up in play testing. So if it came up during the play tests why not put it in the rule book. Some rule books already do so, but many more don´t. So ultimately, we have to resort the FAQs on the internet or just establish our own rules. However, it would be much nicer to have an official saying.
One last thing: reference guides (or cheat sheets)! In my opinion, this is the most awesome thing the rule books can have. It just helps a lot! A good example is 7 Wonders, one of the best rule books I have seen.
Thank for reading!
I'd love to work as a copy editor for game rule books! Hire me, please. Will work for games.
Rulebooks are my #1 board gaming pet peeve. I do appreciate a Table of Contents with a rulebook - and an index for the longer rulebooks would be nice too. DEFINITELY would appreciate an English speaking translator.
My issue with the repetition is that if it is phrased differently enough, it can sometimes read like a different rule (or some variation) and it makes you feel (or me feel) that I've misunderstood something
Two things: One, if you are going to put that thematic start player rule, make sure it is decisive. Don't go "The player who lives in the biggest house starts", and then players will be "but we live together, what do we do?". I also have read one rule that went "Choose start player by any adequate method. We recommend pistols at dawn."
And two, I prefer the games with no tie-breakers at all, but I see it is a matter of taste. Another rulebook, of a recent game, goes "If you played three competitions, use the third highest score to break the tie. If the third highest score is also tied, then that is quite remarkable." And that's it! The rules end. It's quite remarkable and what? Doesn't even say share the victory!
Another common sentence that always gets comments is "place the board in the center of the table". Like it has to be on the center! if it's off-center, you might as well asterisk the game! :P
I agree but for Netrunner there is a good reason to call the different roles "things" by different names. This is to keep the language on cards consistent. Only the Runners hand is called "Grip" the Corporations "hand" is called "HQ". There are actually some situations where funny thins have occurred and have then been considered according to the rules (even though they make absolutely no sense) simply because the language was not specific enough. Some examples, the ID corp Tennin can place advancement counters on the Runners cards. The Runner Program Panchatantra can give ICE subtypes that ICE don't have e.g. it can give it the subtype Connection...
Keep making great videos! =D
Thanks for the insights!
4:00 they should make it so that the more experienced player or the person who read the rules more should go first so that way they can describe it to the players as they do their turn
+carter grantham Yeah, when I'm teaching a game to people, I generally go first and explain to them that very rationale. Then they can see how a turn works and sort of translate the rules into actual game play.
Sometimes it's an advantage to go first, sometimes it's a disadvantage. I disclose which one it is so they can opt out if they want and go first instead.
I agree with Pep about the 1st player rule. But i don't mind random starting player, but I've seen rule books completely ignore addressing who the starting player should be completely, which is really annoying.
My biggest problem is when there is no quick reference on the back of the book or like a separate front/back page. Some games have so many little rules that are hard to remember for newer players. Using Arkham Horror for example, the back of the rule book DOES have a cheat sheet but it doesn't include many things. Like monster movement for example. I feel like that would be necessary to have on the back for a quick reference. It would also be nice to explain what all the little decks are on the back as well (the common items, spells, etc.)
I for one would love to see more turn examples.....More examples = more clarityWhich is why we all watch your videos.
Graphic summary rules, example: Ghost Stories rule book.
I second your point about translations needing to be gone over by a native English speaker.
My favorite solo game, Friday, is haunted to this day by the 'false friend' problem of "aktuel" (the German for "current") having been translated into English as "actual." So you have references to "the actual turn," and "the actual Hazard." I think there are about 30 threads on this in the Friday forums, over on BGG.
It's interesting... I agree a lot of what you all talked about in the video, but that it only works for board/card games. Miniatures games, gamers have really gone out of their way to find an exploit ambiguity. So having the rules mentioned over and over... sometimes helps.
FONT SIZE 3!!
LOL. I am dyslexic and some of the sizes in rulebooks make it really difficult to read.
It would be great to hear your thoughts on particular rulebooks that you thought were done well along with any particular elements that make them stand out from the crowd.
Betrayal at House on the Hill is an interesting example of generic tokens being good. In edition 1, every monster had its own token and the game was kinda annoying when you were looking for the last Bee. In edition 2, they were replaced with generic coloured tokens that change based on the Haunt. Change of token use - yes. Is it better - in this case, yes.
Tiles get tesselated? Tiles are a surface on which other things happen or can be placed,
>> "Table" >> {can contain several} >> "Board" >> {can contain several} >> "Tile"
- a game may omit boards and/or tiles
- All can have defined "spaces" which give context and meaning to items placed there. This space may or may not be explicitly delimited
Items can be anything that is used by a game mechanic
- dice - cards - tokens - pieces - coins - figures - meeples - avatars - crystals - resources - etc...
A bit rules pet peeve of mine is grammar errors or misspelled words, especially if the error is on a card that I have to stare at every time I play. Speaking of cards, some games like Magic the Gathering have additional rules on cards that can be equally confusing or unclear, especially because as the game is constantly updated, so are the rules or keywords that can change the meaning of a term. This can also be true for games that have multiple editions and later rules will trump those of earlier versions.
"In the event of a tie, the tied players immediately engage in a fistfight, flipping the table as needed to make room. The first player to land a punch to the head is the winner. If 3 minutes elapse with neither player landing a punch, then the players share the victory."
+Gene Moore *then the players share the defeat.
Yup, as "rules lackey" for our group, I really appreciate good and bad rulebooks.
A few points - as someone pointed out below, the rounds/turns terms can be interchangeable - 1 turn is X rounds does make sense, but as an old AD&D player I can switch between the 2 fine - *however* establish which terminology you are using firmly, early on.
For me, the components list is used at 2 points - when I first open the game, to check it's all there, and sometimes when setting up, if there are a lot of bits + pieces, to remind me what is what. Put _nothing_ else in that section.
Be consistent - in your layout (e.g. the mentioned usage of italics and bold text - though, to me, italics signify examples and bold emphasise rule applications/usage), in your terminology, etc.
Lastly - put a good index in. There are many rulebooks that are, otherwise, not great that have been saved by a decent index. Even those where rules have been dropped in all over the place can be redeemed by this - especially in games where you will need to look up rules quite often. Also, in the case of games with frequent rules lookups, I don't care how well your rulebook is structured, *please put an index in*.
I personally prefer random p1 over "Last person to X". In my experience, "Last person to X" has wound up being the same person over and over (since the condition doesn't change, and our group's routines don't change often either). Also, by now all of the board game players I know have Chwazi installed on their phones, which makes picking a random player super easy.
I know this is not popular but I kinda like the split rule books FFG does. It gives you core rules and then teaches you the rest by doing. It makes it take less time to get the game to the table and people feel more engaged.
+VideoGameTakeOut Oh yes, a lot of people like it, to be sure.
+Watch It Played Thanks for responding to my super late comment. I can't always keep up with all the videos but I do watch later if I can. I appreciate you coming back to an old video and reading comments. :)
+VideoGameTakeOut I feel you there - so many videos, so little time!
Friendship... Good stuff!
"Few that maybe, weren't as good as the could have been. Or some that were horrible" And there is Myth.
3:30 - The problem our group runs into with these type of themed starting player selections are often it means the same person goes first every time. Ticket to Ride: Person who's traveled the most. I was in the Navy, no one else in the game group even comes close.
I think every game should come with a player cheat sheet explaining basic turns. Saves some teaching time
No argument from me!
Here's one of those things that's like the Band-aid problem: tapping. Wizards of the Coast owns the rights to the term "tapping," so games have to bend over backwards to use words like "activate" or "refresh" when they mean "tap" and "untap." Of course, as soon as you start playing, you'll just say, "I untap--I mean refresh my creatures." That's when you wish we could just let it go and let everyone use "tap."
Yet to the non-gamer / I experienced gamer, activating a card would probably make a lot more sense that to 'tap' a card, whereby they may think you literally rest your finger on it.
I would like to know some of the best rule books you have ran into? Not the best games but the best job at explaining the rules through the book. Here is some items that come to my mind.
- Pandemic
- Imperial Settlers
- 7 Wonders and 7 wonders Duels
- Champions of midgard
- Dice city
A rules index at the back of the book with all the keywords people would think to look up for that particular game
I would like to showcase a game that exemplifies the format in which a rule book index should be written. Now, I wasn't really a huge fan of the game but while looking up rules, the boardgame "Assault on Doomrock" had the best rules index I've ever seen. I feel like, during playtesting they told everyone to write down any questions they had about a rule and a keyword they might look up if an index existed. Compiled that list and put it into the back of the book. A rules index should point you exactly where you need to go. And shouldn't have to tell you that 3 different parts of a mechanic are split up on different pages.
For me, I like the new way Fantasy Flight things are done (Rules / Reference books). The worst thing while playing is to have dig through a book to find the bit you need, especially with new games that you're not 100 percent familiar with. To have a fairly comprehensive alphabetical list of pretty much any term is a godsend.
(However, I do know where you are coming from re: your wanting to read the thing completely before starting.)
If you want to talk about headers and bullet point rules take a look at ASG.
Some examples are Twilight Struggle, Labyrinth, and Fire on the Lake.
Granted they are complicated games, and the headers help you find sections since they reference, but it is a true rules struggle a lot of the times. Love the games though.
Everyone always references Netrunner and it's true - It's what killed a game for my wife as the terms just confused her so it was 1) learn the terms and then 2) Learn the way the game plays. We never did get to 2 :(.
+The Angel of Dice I find the solution there is to have a human explain the rules, drop all the fancy terms then slowly integrate them. If you're going too fast back up; also when integrating use the terms together. ex: I'm going after R&D; that's your deck.
The goal of a rulebook should be to explain rules in the most efficient way possible. Most of the pet peeves here (and mine as well) are ones that make it more difficult for a new game owner to understand how to play their new game. I don't know if you've played the game Through the Ages but in my opinion it's not the most complex game on the planet.... but in my experience so far, it has the most complex set of rules I have ever waded through, which sadly means it ends up on the shelf more than other games.
My personal issue with most rule books, is lack of examples. I personally find it easier, and learn a game more quickly, when the rule book has an example of a round of play.
The worst rulebook fail is when the company doesn't even include a proper printed rulebook (I'm pointing the finger at you FFG for XCOM). online rules are for video games, not board games. This is now a total deal breaker for my future purchases.
+Maui Chris Meh, XCOM doesn't bother me one bit. It has a super nifty tutorial which teaches you both the game rules AND the necessary app at the same time. Everything is in the app. Very handy.
+Rainer Ahlfors it makes it a pain to look something up and when someone wants to see something, you have to stop the whole game & hand them the laptop when you should just be able to pass the paper rulebook. if it works for you, that's great. i personally hate it
- The only two times a rule book should repeat things are when giving an example or if it has a rules or turn summary; on the reverse side, sometimes the only time a rule is presented is during an example.
- I really hate walls of text, and I especially hate when the wall of text is done in a crazy font or font that changes randomly throughout the rules (as much as I enjoy the game, Epic Spell Wars does this); it gets difficult to discern what items are rules and what is for flavor.
My friends and I played and really loved Champions of Midgard last weekend, but I have a few problems with the rule book (I don't mean to pick on the game, and in all fairness some of it was partially our fault for rushing set up and rules explanation, but since it was from our last game night, finding out about the/our mistakes afterwards is fresh in my mind):
- We did not notice the spaces next to the Runesmith to put face up cards, and at no point is filling them mentioned in the rule book (as were all of the other flipped cards), so we drew from the top of the face down pile if we went there.
- The use of favor tokens is only explained during a part that was originally passed over because it looked like it was only a combat example; there is an "appendix" section of the rule book, but it is not even listed there.
- The final scoring summary lists "Runes (used and unused)," as though they are scored even if they were used, but during a play through with the designer, he directly stated that only unused runes were supposed to be scored.
Power Grid uses the term "turn" in such a confusing way. Their turn 1, turn 2, and turn 3 mean early stage of the game, mid stage, and end stage.
And the rule book in the deluxe version doesn't explain the "turn" term until almost in the las few pages.
For repetition I like to be told once; if you tell me again do it in a reminder box so that it is not part of the flow of text.
For renaming of terms I actually like it when it adds to an immersive theme. If there's no thematic benefit, or even if it adds theme to a game the isn't immersive anyway, then I'm not a fan.
Mansions of Madnesses nuff said!
The use of "turn" in Thunder Alley is a throwback to old-school wargames. If you go back to the 1970s and 1980s games from publishers like SPI or Avalon Hill, a game usually comprised a series of "turns" (or "game turns") with each player having one or more "phases" (or sometimes "segments") in the turn. That usage seems to have gone out of favor now, and I've come to prefer the new usage ("rounds" made up of "turns"), but there was a transition period when it seemed really strange and confusing to me.
The new usage also can get convoluted when a game has the players' actions interspersed with each other (for example, a sequence like: Player 1 missile, Player 2 missile, P1 Leader, P2 Leader, P1 melee, P2 melee). In that case, what is "Player 1's turn"? Do we speak of the "Player 1 missile turn", "Player 2 melee turn", etc.? In this case it seems natural to call those phases, in which case there's not really any opportunity for confusion with "turns" that comprise a full sequence of phases. These kinds of gameplay sequences were pretty common back in the old days, so perhaps that's why their terminology evolved the way it did.
In the rules for my Castles of Burgundy they claim that the game is played over 5 phases that are played in 5 rounds each. But I, on the other hand, claim that there are 5 rounds played and they consist of 5 phases each. I'm very meticulous in telling players that when I teach the game, and they agree!
When it comes to translations of games we have had some bad luck in Sweden when some games have been translated. Quite often publishers make Nordic editions of games and they have included rules in Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, and too often I have found errors in the Swedish translations. Luckily those three languages are a bit similar so as a Swede I can always double check with Norwegian or Danish, and unfortunately I have been forced to do that and has realized that the translations of rules could be different. It's enough with just a single tiny word being wrong, and the game won't work as planned!
Do not hide away the starting components for players in a paragraph on the setup page! Put it in a box that's easy to see. Starting hand size for cards, starting money for first player, second player etc.